UN criticizes Israel's atomic program

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Here you have Iran talking trash and busting it's balls to develop nuclear weapons. Then you have Israel, who has had nuclear weapons for several
years and hasn't used them. Get real!

Oh I see. So if Iran can show they've had nuclear weapons for years, that's no problem then. Do nuclear weapons have some kind of break in period?
Like after 5 or 10 years they aren't dangerous to the security of the free world anymore? North Korea has had nuclear weapons since the start of the
decade, does that mean they're no longer a threat?

[edit on 9/18/2009 by ZombieOctopus]

Outstanding point friend and funny too. Obviously everyone would prefer because of the strategic importance of the region and it's oil supply that no
one have nuclear weapons.

Maybe when the nukes finally do start flying if we covered ourselves with oil they wouldn't target us?

Seems like oil is a bit more important than human beings are these days!

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The United States has drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all countries with atomic weapons
to get rid of them, a text Washington hopes will be approved by a special council session presided over by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The 15-nation council will debate the draft resolution on Sept. 24 on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the General Assembly, where Obama is
making his debut appearance at the United Nations. Washington holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council during September.

the document, which "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities," and links it to "concern about the threat posed by the
proliferation of nuclear weapons for the security and stability of the Middle East."

It expresses concerns, it doesn't say Israel should disarm now, so anti-Israeli's should stop foaming at the mouth!

But chief Iranian delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh said the vote should serve as a warning to Washington and other supporters of the Jewish
state.

"The US Administration .... has received a message that they should not continue supporting Israel at any price," he told reporters.

You can take this about as serious as Ahmadinejad's holocaust denials. If this came from Russia, China or a EU state then I'd say it would be a
turn of events, but this is nothing new coming from the Iranian regime.

Funny that you should say this, because I would sleep better at night knowing that EVERYONE has nuclear weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to go, because Pandora's Box has already been opened. Even if we were able to achieve "total nuclear
disarmament" you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody will keep at least one or two around.

That's a good point, and imagine if everyone had actually disarmed, and we had WW3 straight after with conventional weapons on a WW2 or greater
scale. It would be an oops, we should have kept nukes to deter this from happening, or to prevent the odd rogue nation from attacking their neighbour
under the threat of nuclear retaliation.

Funny that you should say this, because I would sleep better at night knowing that EVERYONE has nuclear weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to go, because Pandora's Box has already been opened. Even if we were able to achieve "total nuclear
disarmament" you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody will keep at least one or two around.

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The United States has drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all countries with atomic weapons
to get rid of them, a text Washington hopes will be approved by a special council session presided over by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The 15-nation council will debate the draft resolution on Sept. 24 on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the General Assembly, where Obama is
making his debut appearance at the United Nations. Washington holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council during September.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

Oh yes I agree we all need to disarm eventually, but I think we have to make sure nobody else is building nukes first, and for the main players to
learn how to get on with each other permanently.

I don't think everyone will disarm completely for a long time, it will take lots of UN resolutions just to get it down to half of where we are now.
The UN isn't completely inept, just inept most of the time!

Israel isn't going to disarm, just like Britain aren't. First the US and Russia take the first steps, and countries like Iran and N.Korea will have
to agree, otherwise there'll be consequences for them.

The UN has been the main mechanism of control, and manipulation of the World for a very long time. It is the prime mechanism used as an excuse in
Iraq. Now I am guessing due to internal conflicts with the Elite We are able to use somewhat unaltered information, or reports that cast a better
shadow, and peace outlook for the World. Your argument is weak for the very fact of the People You call anti "Israel" are nothing more than "peace
mongers". We aren't anti Israel, but anti Zionism; which transcends Religion, and race.

I'm basing my analysis of the UN on recent events, of course it has been useful in the past. More recently the UN has not prevented Hezbollah from
rearming and has withheld reports until a couple of days ago that Iran is capable of producing a nuclear bomb. The UN is most certainly corrupt
and/or inept in some fashion.

Since Israel is a secular state, then any argument against them having nuclear weapons is not anti-zionist, it's anti-Israel.

I'm not sure what peacemongering

has to do with it. I doubt anyone here is extremely anti-Israel to the point they would wish a country to
attack them, but there are many folks who allow themselves to be mislead.

The UN has been the main mechanism of control, and manipulation of the World for a very long time. It is the prime mechanism used as an excuse in
Iraq. Now I am guessing due to internal conflicts with the Elite We are able to use somewhat unaltered information, or reports that cast a better
shadow, and peace outlook for the World. Your argument is weak for the very fact of the People You call anti "Israel" are nothing more than "peace
mongers". We aren't anti Israel, but anti Zionism; which transcends Religion, and race.

For some strange reason Sancho, us peace mongerers appear to be if I understand the arguments correctly the cause of why we need all these wars.
Evidently our desire for peace displays a sign of weakness that will invite war in some peoples minds and peace is a dangerous thing to have until
everyone is killed that might not be trusted to remain peacable first before the truly peaceful people who can be trusted to remain peacable can be
peacable.

It's of course too intellectual an argument for a mere peace mongerer to understand but as I understand violently attacking everyone who is currently
peaceful but might not always be peaceful is the only was us truly peaceful can enjoy peace????

The war mongerers of course aren't really war mongerers but peace loving people whose peace is threatened by our peace mongering?

It's kind of like a who's on first, no who's on 2nd, what's on 1st type of argument that evidently only some people are gifted with the extreme
intelligence to understand.

Our peace mongering reluctance to take the war mongerers word for this is what makes the world a dangerous place for the peacable.

I hope I have enlightened you so you can better understand the true dangers of peace mongering now!

It's funny that you use a strawman argument to refute the observation that somebody's comments are anti-Israel. That does not mean pro-war,
anti-war, pro-peace or anti-peace, it just means that I've observed many people clutching at straws to criticise Israel whenever they can!

Now you may be mislead by others, if not by the warmongerers on your side, it may be the warmongers on the other side. How's the rose-tinted glasses
you wear when looking at the Iranian regime?!

We may all want to live in a peaceful world without war, without nukes, but we know it isn't going to happen. So we make a more realistic analysis
instead.

Huh, seems that warrenb pointed out that Israel is not 100% Jewish. I know Zionism runs deep throughout the World.......Christian Zionism is rampant
in the States. Biden, and Tom Delay amongst others claim to be proud Zionists.

So, I definitely have a different view than You. That being said, Your argument has gone from weak to biased.

You in short order said whatever Israel, or the States deem credible at the time is the only truth..... The UN can be useful at times, but currently
is only corrupt, and full of bad reviews...................... that's basically what You said, do You realize how deranged that makes You sound????

Huh, seems that warrenb pointed out that Israel is not 100% Jewish. I know Zionism runs deep throughout the World.......Christian Zionism is rampant
in the States. Biden, and Tom Delay amongst others claim to be proud Zionists.

So, I definitely have a different view than You. That being said, Your argument has gone from weak to biased.

You in short order said whatever Israel, or the States deem credible at the time is the only truth..... The UN can be useful at times, but currently
is only corrupt, and full of bad reviews...................... that's basically what You said, do You realize how deranged that makes You sound????

Foaming at the Mouth for Peace Sancho

I was merely pointing out how the UN and IAEA have withheld information, and also how the UN can be a useful tool for future disarmament of nuclear
weapons.

Everything else you have inferred from my comments is completely invalid, and your conclusions are based on an invalid pretext.

Israel aren't going to disarm yet, and that was another point I made. Israel is a secular state, so anti-zionism doesn't apply here, it's more
anti-Israel if someone were to suggest Israel should disarm when others still possess nukes in greater numbers.

The foaming at the mouth remark was intended to demonstrate how folks here may pick up on the slightest bit of information and intend to use that as a
catalyst to support their usual anti-Israel stance, however weak it is. The recent foaming at the mouth from that clan involves blowing a UN
resolution out of proportion, based on a comment from an Iranian delegate whose comment is the usual threatening message towards Israel and the US.

As somebody has already shown, there is a UN resolution put in motion to disarm all nuclear weapons, which is a great idea. There's concerns for
everyone's nukes, and there's concerns about the consequences of disarmament.

To infer a concern means a significant shift in power is only blatent Iranian regime garbage. I know many here will claim anything that is against
Israel, however minor, to be a change of world policy, because they hope it to be so! That doesn't mean to say there aren't also peaceful people
here who don't think like that, and only have reasonable concerns about nuclear weapons, which is perfectly justifiable. We should all have concerns
about all nukes, not just Israel's nukes.

Israel, the US etc do have justifiable reasons to prevent Iran from possessing a nuke.

Wow John who exactly is the we that you refer to that's running this show?

Which policy making body are 'we' a member of friend John?

Iran has not attacked anyone, England and the United States have, Israel has.

The world is no safer place for it. In fact the wars are so unpopular the German Army is actually performing a combat role in Afghanistan. That's
pretty desperate for troops to let the Germans out of the dog house to fight.

Meanwhile in Germany there is a movement growing of rather unhappy people who are now all of a sudden remembering what it's like to see their
children march off to war and come back in coffins.

What makes the world dangerous the world over is not nations but people who live in nations who are predisposed to violence who all employ your
identical argument on both sides of the coin.

Somewhere in Iran right now there is a guy just like you who is certain the only way they can ever have peace is to get rid of your nation.

The only thing that makes your thinking and indisciminate glorification of war and violence any different than theirs in your mind is that you aren't
them and it's them you would prefer to kill for the sake of exercising your own blood lusts and frustrations with your own life.

The reality is it's got nothing to do with them, it's just all about John and John's own image of self.

There are a lot of really great people in England and a lot of really great people in Iran.

There are a lot of really great people the world over.

All I can do is hope that calmer, saner, more rational and intelligent minds will prevail.

Life is worth living John, everyone's life is worth living, and honestly if I was an Iranian and was listening to some one like you spout off at the
mouth I would feel a need to develop greater defences too.

Defensive weapons and offensive thinking are two different things, the only side advocating war here is Israel and it's Zionist and few key Western
supporters, the rest of the world including Iranians are terrified of the prospect, Iran simply understands that because of people like you it's
probably wise to do everything it can to defensively protect itself while you espouse the best defense is a withering offence which is really as
offensive as you can get.

Will you still be laughing when your petrol is 25.00 pounds a litre, your ale is 15.00 pounds a bottle, and fish and chips are 20.00 pounds and you
lost your job because of the economic collapse that will occur when the Persian Gulf has been blocked?

Will you still be laughing when the good old dear Queen Mum presses you into service and your guts are dangling all over an Iranian street corner?

For such a brave warrior tell me how come you aren't in Afghanistan fighting already?

I'm sorry, but you don't see the issue. I have not condoned any war, neither do I want it to happen. I know many consequences of any such
conflict, and I have many Iranian friends who tell me a great deal about their country.

You are misunderstanding my support for the Iranian opposition to expressing desire for a war.

I was referring to consequences for these countries, not as my actual desire, but how things may play out. Although we simply cannot waste time
negotiating with Ahmadinejad who has no power in which to stop the enrichment programme. UN santions providing Russia will go along with it, are the
correct way forward to support the Iranian opposition movement, and further the demise of Khamenei, his son and the particular revolutionary guards
who will remain loyal until the end.

Your comments are often based on precondtions set for others. It seems one cannot be anti-Iranian regime without being pro-war.

Black and white approaches only lead to confused views on these issues, and even anti-israeli stances under the pretext of peacemongering, whether by
ignorance or choice

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael
Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

It is a page compilation of all the racist remarks spoken by the Zionists. Food for thought especially as We are moving toward war with Iran; who
again has done nothing wrong. They are remaining vigilant while Israel is openly stating they are going to attack.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.